The West’s Selective Enforcement in Rwanda

Since the Rwandan genocide in 1994, where a radical faction of the ethnic Hutu majority systemically killed nearly one million ethnic Tutsis, Rwanda has been described as the “Singapore of Africa.” Rwanda has experienced one of the fastest growing global economies since 1994,  averaging seven to eight percent GDP growth per year. Rwanda scores especially high on metrics in property rights, government spending, healthcare, labor freedom and jurisdictional effectiveness, making it the 29th easiest place to conduct business in the world, ahead of countries like France, Belgium and Italy. Most notably, Rwanda has largely avoided ethnic violence since the salience of the Hutu-Tutsi divide has largely diminished from public life. This success story in Rwanda has become a case study in post-conflict development, attracting significant Western aid and praise for its technocratic governance under President Paul Kagame and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). However, Rwanda’s success also reveals a deeper contradiction in Western foreign policy, which often prioritizes stability and economic interests over democratic values and human rights. 

Despite Rwanda’s economic success under President Paul Kagame, the country earns a Freedom Score of  36/100 and is classified as ‘Not Free’ by Freedom House, reflecting significant restrictions on political freedoms. Paul Kagame began his presidential tenure in 2000 and, despite brutally defeating Hutu insurgent groups after the genocide, Kagame’s regime received high approval ratings and Western aid. However, Kagame has restricted press freedoms, outlawed political participation, extended the presidential term limit, and faced repeated allegations of torture, unlawful detentions, and forced disappearances from international human rights organizations. Despite these concerns, Western governments have continued supporting Rwanda financially and diplomatically, only imposing meaningful consequences when Rwanda threatens regional stability. This highlights the selective nature of Western policy toward Rwanda, raising questions about whether it reflects liberal principles and democratic governance or instead prioritizes regional stability in pursuit of their own interests. 

The United States and UN have condemned and applied diplomatic pressure to Rwanda before, but have rarely imposed significant consequences for human rights abuses in the homeland. Following the Rwandan genocide, many Hutu extremeists fled to the Eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) to escape military retaliation from the RPF led by Paul Kagame. Tutsi-Hutu tensions grew in the region resulting in the First Congo War (1996-1997) and the Second Congo War (1998-2003). Between 2002 and 2003 the region began implementing peace agreements with oversight from UN peacekeeping forces. However, unrest in the region persisted, and in 2012, the March 23 Movement (M23), a rebel group composed primarily of ethnic Tutsis, emerged. Between 2012 and 2013, M23 captured the major city of Goma, causing international outrage. Western governments accused Rwanda of backing the rebel group with funding and logistical support, and the U.S. and some European countries responded by suspending aid to Rwanda. M23 was militarily defeated by Congolese and UN forces, and afterward Rwandan relations with the West reopened and normalized despite lingering concerns. After remaining inactive for years afterwards, M23 reemerged in 2022, rapidly seizing territory in Eastern Congo, where Rwandan-backed fighting continues to this day. The U.S. and EU increased public condemnation, but have not applied serious consequences until recently. In March 2026, the Trump administration sanctioned the Rwandan Defense Force for its continued support of M23 and violating the U.S.-brokered peace deal instated this past December that aimed to end the conflict in Eastern-DRC. Congo produces 70 percent of the world's cobalt, a mineral needed for electric car batteries, smartphones, and renewable energy infrastructure, and with China’s tightening grip of global supply chains in earth minerals, the United States values stability in the region more than ever. The Washington Accords for Peace and Prosperity peace deal brokered by the Trump administration in June 2025 contained several stipulations supporting the United States’ economic interests in the region. Though the deal was presented as an instrument of regional integration and peace, many conditions of the deal focused on securing supply chains for minerals, aligning mining policies with U.S. industrial ambitions, and encouraging greater U.S. investment in the Congo’s mining sector. Through this approach, the United States aims to secure preferential access in the region while also limiting the influence of competitors such as China. This makes regional stability not only a humanitarian concern but a strategic economic priority for Western powers, shaping their response to Rwanda. The United States and Western approach to Rwanda reflects a rational, but morally flawed foreign policy that values regional stability and development more than a true ideal for democracy and human rights. 

The war between M23 and the Democratic Republic of the Congo has entered a new phase, where M23 has shifted its strategy from a focus on territorial control to imposing political and administrative authority on the mineral rich land and mining sites they control. From this, M23 has extracted $800,000 from taxing miners and traders alone. While the M23 militia is growing, the West struggles to navigate balancing punishment with material interest. European Union nations have proposed a freeze to the current minerals deal they have with Rwanda, but it has stalled due to strategic concerns over reducing reliance on China for rare earth minerals. The European Union is now facing pressure to match the U.S. sanctions, which have been imposed less out of humanitarian concern than to economic interests and political narratives such as President Trump’s claim to have ended eight wars. 

The case of Rwanda ultimately demonstrates that Western foreign policy, while rhetorically committed to democracy and human rights, is often driven by strategic and economic interests. Despite repeated allegations of assaults on human rights and political oppression, Paul Kagame has managed to maintain a trustworthy relationship with the West. It was only after evidence surfaced that Kagame and Rwanda were backing a war that destabilized the region and jeopardized Western mineral interests that the United States imposed sanctions, and the EU began considering similar punitive actions. While this approach may be rational from a strategic perspective, it contradicts the Western rhetoric and sentiment of pursuing global human rights and democracy.